Building designs betray MSU style

I agree with you Dan in regards the art museum. I just can’t believe that they would put such a pile of steel where they want to put it. It is absolutely out of place. It looks like a UFO landed on North campus. Coming down Grand River it looks like a pile of junk waiting to be picked up by sanitation. Unbelievable. Seems like such a waste of money for what we are getting. So much for campus planning.

excellent op-ed

I’d be surprised if it’s actually built. It’s too small of an area to house any building of decent size.

While I agree with some of what you’ve said, i think its very important to thank Eli and Edythe Broad for their very generous donation to MSU. We greatly appreciate it!

I agree that the Hannah Admin building is quite ugly. However there is a reason for it. At the time when it was in the design/construct phase, the country was in political turmoil. There was a war going on, there were students protesting, and there were students killed protesting at Kent State in Ohio. The Admin building follows the tradition of many gov’t buildings constructed during the same era… large, looming and intimidating. It was meant to look like a fortress to discourage violent protest of the administration (government).

So we are left with a hulking behemoth of a building along a scenic portion of the river.

Oh well.

If they would put the Broad Museum on the other side of campus (where it would “fit” with the likes of the Chemistry building, etc. or, better yet, near the Wharton Center) I would have no problem with it. After making the parking ramp fit in on the old part of campus (and did a beautiful job), you would think they would realize what a sore thumb this museum will be. While they are at it, they should take down that Student Services building, it looks out of place too! Come on people, let’s look at the big picture, this campus is large and we can spread the “beauty” around, let’s just keep it coherent.

I could go either way with what Dan wrote. While I agree that there are many eyesores around this campus, there are plenty of breathtaking buildings as well. However, Dan is right when it comes to just tearing down beautiful old buildings and replacing them with ugly ones, or worse, parking lots. Unfortunately, that has happened in a town near where I live because of a lot of fires. But it shouldn’t happen here. It seems rather than using money to fix historic and useful buildings like Morrill Hall, the administration wants to spend more money tearing it down and putting something “better” up instead. Well I hope they keep a good record of where it was or else this university will end up with another archaeological dig like College Hall. Hard to believe that after so many generations and supposedly having a better understanding of why history is important we still do the same things and neglect what we have. I could also argue against Dan saying that while many of the new buildings on campus don’t look as good, (lets be honest, some of them really do look like the architect drew up the plans in the dark) there are some buildings that do sing true to our image of a beautiful campus. Just look at the design of BPS. A building doesn’t have to be made of brick to look good you know. Plus, at the very least it doesn’t look as distasteful as the museum is supposedly going to look. Lets just hope that the architect who designs the new train/bus station makes one better than what is there now. Heck, he better because there is a lot of inspiration to be found in the historic train stations around here. For instance, Lansing, Battle Creek, Durand, Niles, etc. Plus all the old buildings on campus should be a start to his/her blueprint. Oh, by the way, the Hannah Administration Building is not supposed to be “pretty”(or wonderful). It’s just like any other office building, which is no surprise to me. It is nonetheless impressive and represents a time when the country was in turmoil and those at the top wanted to flaunt their power over everyone else. In this case, build a bulking structure that screams “I control this place”. Preferably a building made out of strong material like steel and concrete. Looking back, FYI was exactly right in thinking so. But in the future, I hope that MSU can strive to build better buildings.

Leave those modern designs for the corporate world. I say MSU should stick with the neoclassical style.

I agree with most of what everyone is saying. The only problem with Morill is it is cost prohibitive…. or so I hear.
I believe there were articles a few years ago that it was more money to fix it, bring it up to codes, retrofit blah blah than to tear down and build new.
When that day comes, I hope the new building fits in.
Another option I have seen is saving the outer walls, and rebuilding the insides brand new. I have seen this done with old school and court buildings, and its very cool.

Very well written. As a lifelong East Lansing resident and 1975 MSU grad, I’d like to see those ivy covered buildings like Morrill preserved and any new structures should be designed to fit in.

If there’s enough disapproval for this building, why don’t you complain to the MSU presidents & do something about it? Hadid has known to do that kind of work all over the world. If communities want solutions that are more contextual, why don’t the students & residents round up & petition for a new competition? There are many dollars at stake.

Yes some of the building built post WW2 are not as attractive as older buildings on campus. However, I would rather have some ugly less expensive building and less expensive tuition. If you want all your building to please the eye go to Harvard and fork over 60,000 a year.

Soapboxing aside; this architecture critique is just another example of the interplay between boards, commitees, donors, and benefactors. Certainly MSU has a defined building and grounds council governing styles of architecture to be acceptable for MSU’s campus plan (and I bet it requires a red brick in the facade) – have they gone soft? Have they been overruled? Only certain parties know the truth.
The only certainty that we have is our own opinion. My first cent; I honestly find it humorous that most of our College Campuses, Edu Centers, and Universities have a fade-in/fade-out sequence of opinions and preferences. Architecture can be a beautiful, tangible practice of immortality that allows us to see ourselves in a moment in time and state ‘what the hell were they thinking?!’.
Apparently MSUs architecture is dijointed, yes I spent some time studying the interactive campus map – very nice, so disjointed that it is teetering on an imbalance of identity. Looks like ‘ivy-covered halls’ only exists in in a song that only MSU loyalists will recount.
My last cent; Enjoy this building as a signature element that will become nothing more than a landmark for directions. I am a little abashed that these starchitects are imposing a structure that has no immediate relation to the context. It seems that MSU is checking off the box [] Construct an oddity.

Toss out my two cents and remember this; God made man and trees, man made architecture and architecture needs trees, sometimes lots of them.

I don’t think it really matters anyway. Michigan State is still going to suck and Dan will still wear green t-shirts. The world will keep spinning and other universities and college campuses on the for front of design and education will move on ahead. Meanwhile MSU and the rest of the over rated Big Ten(11) will be talking about how good things used to be.

People always like things later. The Eiffel Tower and Space Needle were both ugly when built.

What I don’t like is that Morrill will get destroyed. Come on, it’s history. I wish they’d renovate the hell out of it and keep the brick like some kind of facade instead of destroying one of the few buildings that keeps us differentiated from a 10 year old community college.

No, “go to Harvard”, I’ve got a better idea: why don’t you drop out (which I’m sure you’re close to doing) and enroll in community college where you would have ugly buildings, low tuition and a place that will nurture your infantile mind…

… btw, I still refuse to believe Morrill can’t be saved — it amazes me people like Dan just go along with the powers that be and drink the Morrill Kool-Aid they’re selling…

… I was in Lancaster, PA recently in it’s convention center which is made up of the facade of a 150 year-old department store. Why can’t this be done for Morrill. I don’t care if it is supported by wood planks; it could be gutted; the walls held in place, and rebuilt new but keeping the old.

For someone with lack of knowledge and any desire to understand the current state of world or American architecture, you provide amazingly strong and ignorant views. Admittedly you say this is your personal taste, but you talk about architecture as if its main purpose should be pleasing you personally. The nostalgic view of “historic architecture” you have presented is more in tune with Uncle Charles across the Pound. For which he is getting loads of condemnation.
I am very cautious to take the opinions of people that start with saying “Look, I am no architect. I’ve never studied architecture, and I definitely don’t possess the skills necessary to be one. I can’t even build a solid gingerbread house.” But somehow I feel like, I know much better than everyone else that has been associated with these projects from the beginning of a very long process.
The obvious question here is whether you and the like minded are ready for Hadid, not if her building is ready for what it intends to do on your campus. For a person not knowing about architecture you dare to project that “The Richardsonian Romanesque buildings that make up Laboratory Row are considered to be real treasures, though when they were built, they were meant to serve no greater purpose than basic lab work.” I would disagree with you vehemently, Henry Hobson Richardson and his firm are responsible for producing numerous architectural masterworks which influenced generations of architects and gave birth to the style you have mentioned. That does not happen by accident. Zaha Hadid is a Pritzker price wining architect with masterworks all around the world and most of her critics are much more sophisticated in their approach.
By the way, the very buildings that you label “historic” including the Richardsonian buildings are all but reinterpretations of classical antiquity as it relates to architecture and as such they could be called revisionist and regressive. If your campus does not stand for the future of innovation in its physical environment, many of its students would internalize this old-fashioned nostalgic and superficial ideal of a campus. It is the role of campus to push your boundaries and what is a better way to do it than through the built environment.

Badvibe,

you make a lot of sense and are absolutely right when you say: a college campus, particularly an international-class university like MSU, should absolutely push the bounds of architecture when it comes to seeking the daring and the cutting edge, … the Broads selected both Hadid and the design for this very purpose… The Dan Faas’ and other students (seemingly a majority, if you go by this board) are an embarrassment for MSU — they have little artistic or architectural understanding and are very closed minded. It doesn’t speak well for our school.

I would slightly disagree with you, badvibe, in the purpose of the labs on lab row: the research the represent was cutting-edge for their time:

- Marshall-Adams was the 1st free standing teaching and research bacteriology lab in America when built in 1902.

- ditto Eustace-Cole (viz horticulture, designed by famed alum Liberty Hyde Bailey, in 1888).

- old Botany (built 1892) replaced the 10-year old Beal Botany lab, which burned in 1890, and was, likewise, the 1st botany lab/classroom…

Dan’s right about one thing: Hannah Admin’s an ugly fortress. But the posters ARE insightful in noting the purpose of that architecture was to embody power and authority… absolutely correct!